Because the rule of the phallus of the hand is a mess

After Milan-Juventus, the semi-finals in the Coppa Italiaended in a 1-1 is returned to the mouth of all the problem of the ‘handball‘ penalty area. The regulation at hand, there are those who gave him to Valeri, the arbitrator of the challenge for having punished the touch of Calabria on the reverse of Cristiano Ronaldo, within the remembrance of – as the previous illustrious and almost equal – when Cerri touched with his hand (in movements, and the like) in the Cagliari-Brescia Abbattista , which decreed the penalty. And there are those who, instead, has made plausible the decision of Valeri and of the VAR – always the regulation at hand – considering the ‘volume’ of the arm of the defender act to stop the ball, although with his face turned. And the one who raised the controversy by entering into the discourse complottismi related to the psychological subjection, lack of preparation of arbitration, at the discretion of whistles, from moment to moment.

In short, the rule for a hand foul in the penalty area is a real mess to regulate, even a casino. Because now is not missing the game and do not discuss the positioning of the arm or hand, the ‘congruence’ of the movement, of the images in slow-motion, and so forth. To paraphrase a song of the ‘883′, unfortunately, the rule of the phallus hand, is not like that of our friend, who is never wrong”.
On the contrary. But let’s try to make this clear.

Foul of hand, because it generates confusion as to its nature

  • We start from the regulation of the football, where in recent years the regulation of a handball in the penalty area was, according to the season, debated and shared in meetings between the HAGUE, captains and coaches. The rule of the phallus of the hand, as it is written leaves room for the discretion of the moment.

The incipit of the article itself is accurate: “it Is usually an offence if a soccer player touches the ball with his hands / arms when they are positioned in an unnatural way, thus increasing the space occupied by the body”. In the article of the regulation (which has a “usually” too, which opens up the side of a manifest freedom of interpretation of arbitration does not (rightly) a reference to the player’s position compared to the opponent: the fact that it is shot at the moment of touch – for example – does not affect any sanction (otherwise, all the defenders girerebbero from the other side with the arms and hands in search of the ball). And when it says “When the hands/arms are positioned in an unnatural way and increase the volume occupied by the body”, which opens, however, the never-ending discussion with different factions ready to wave their own reasons.

  • The controversy over the lack of uniformity of directives by the heads of the arbitration , which lead to create confusion not only to the same whistles, but also to the leaders of the VAR, and – consequently – to the managers, players, technicians and fans

The back of the hand, as well as any other legislation, there are summit the pre-season and during the season, in which the designator of referees, Rizzoli, together with theAIA invites the whistles, collaborators, managers, captains and coaches , in analyzing the rules and give a clear explanation about what happened. There is often a uniformity of opinion (especially in the rear with the admission on the part of the designator on some of the choices and consequent ‘stop’ given to whistles under indictment).
The case of Calabria‘ all have mentioned immediately in the Oaks‘ highlighting the likely contrasting indications given to the arbitrators. But in these two specific cases, there is a ‘distinction’ clear: Turkey has touched in a action confused in the area, not knowing well what could happen, Calabria has stopped on a definite shot on goal. And it is here that the Finalists (and the VAR), the choice is finished on the diskette.

  • The contribution of the slow-motion is also under the criticism more fierce. The VAR, on a foul in penalty area, is in its way to become a discriminating in order to avoid controversy. The images and the technology are perfect in the moment in which you must display with a still electronic image if the foul is committed in the area or not, if the contrast or not. But goes haywire on the touch of the hand

The technology was essential to remove most of the doubts ‘objective’: through the integration of three-dimensional technology called ‘Cross the Air‘, it is possible to establish if the contact between ball and hand or arms is occurred or not inside the penalty area with a margin of error to almost a minimum. But the touch of hands in the area, the replayer only shows if there is the fact or not. From there forward it is the task of those responsible for the VAR and the referee evaluate all. Of course ‘subjective’.

Conclusion

Therefore, the ‘handball in the penalty area‘ itself is and will remain a rule may be interpreted, for its intrinsic nature. Or you begin to propose forcing regulations or you will have to live with the problem. A single solution is not there because every game, every episode will remain unique in their evolution. The important thing, in this moment in the history of football, not only in italy, is to accept the situation without trying to ‘attitudes’ and special by protagonists in the field.

Also avoid attempting to create ‘links’ on episodes of similar because (the cases of Calabria and Cerri, teach) there is always a context in which it is reached, the ‘regulation’. And’ the ‘moment’ was the discriminating factor, in addition to”the mind”, beyond any rule that speak of ‘volume’ or ‘opposition’. Without forgetting the ‘usually’ placed at the beginning of the standard.

Because the rule for a hand foul in the area code once and for all, there is only one road, this provocative, ahead. If you want to transform as a “rule of the friend, that is never wrong”, the only solution is a forced whistle always and anyway the penalty is when there is a touch in the area. As said the good old man Vujadin Boskov: “Penalty is when referee whistles,”. But we are sure that even so, the controversy would continue?